Skip to main content
Glama

Emailable

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Resolve Entity

resolve_entity
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What's the ticker for…" / "find the CIK for…" / "what's the LEI for…" / "what's the RxCUI for…" / "look up the ID for…" / "what is X's official identifier" / "who owns X" / "is X a subsidiary of Y" — resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input. Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID. SUPPORTED TYPES: "company" (cross-source identity spine: 10-digit CIK + ticker + company_name from SEC EDGAR, legal-entity LEI from GLEIF with parent/ultimate-parent/children ownership when the LEI resolves, and security FIGI from OpenFIGI — by exact ticker map when a ticker is implied, and otherwise by name search, so NON-EQUITY instruments that never have a ticker (municipal and corporate bonds, notes, authority debt) DO resolve here; when a name matches more than one instrument it asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates to pick from, which is the correct answer to an issuer name that does not identify a single bond; every identifier is labelled with the source that established it, and an identifier that could NOT be resolved is stated explicitly under unresolved rather than omitted — accepts ticker, CIK, ISIN, or company name as input; an ISIN like "CH0038863350" resolves to the LEGAL ENTITY that issued the security via the GLEIF ISIN-to-LEI mapping, covering non-US issuers EDGAR cannot reach), "drug" (returns RxCUI + ingredient + brand from RxNorm + pipeworx://rxnorm/concept/{rxcui} citation; accepts brand or generic name). LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully — if GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, the EDGAR identifiers still return. Each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally — using resolve_entity replaces 2-3 manual lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type: "company" or "drug".
valueYesFor company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., "ozempic", "metformin"). Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY — for a bond that is the ISSUER exactly as printed ("NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH"), never the question's full noun phrase ("NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH revenue bonds"): the FIGI lookup matches instrument names, so trailing security-class words match nothing.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds critical behavior beyond them: non-equity instruments resolve, ambiguous matches return figi_candidates instead of asserting, unresolved identifiers are explicitly listed, and enrichment degrades gracefully. This governs agent expectations without contradicting annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but earns its length by packing dense, operational detail. It front-loads the trigger phrases and 'Use FIRST,' then organized supported types. Some parenthetical asides are heavy, but every sentence adds behavioral or usage information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description fully explains input forms, resolution behavior, edge cases, and fallback semantics. There is no gap an agent would face when deciding to call it or interpreting ambiguous returns; the shared output-shape conventions for identifiers are sufficiently described.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds substantial meaning beyond schema: input examples, what 'value' means for an entity name, the exact form for issuers, why trailing security-class words break matches, and per-type resolution behavior. Slight redundancy with enum descriptions but clearly adds value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with concrete user phrasing and a crisp statement of purpose: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical identifiers, with supported types company and drug. It differentiates from siblings by noting it produces IDs other tools require, and contrasts with entity_profile/compare_entities implicitly. Highly specific verb+resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' lists accepted input formats, distinguishes instrument vs issuer matching for bonds, and documents graceful degradation when enrichment sources fail. It clearly signals when to choose this tool and warns against passing full noun phrases, exceeding minimal usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Emailable toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (standard, beta, grounded) and validate_claim vs ask_pipeworx_grounded may cause some confusion for agents despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, and most are verb_noun structures (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the set is larger than ideal but well-justified by the broad scope of data sources and functionalities (email verification, SEC/FDA lookups, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions).

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full pipeline from data discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions) to retrieval, analysis, comparison, verification, and monitoring, with no obvious gaps for its intended use cases.

Resources